Some interesting points here IMHO. The Milgram studies were real scary stuff- beats the hell out of the nonsense studies that the twits at Berkeley and other leftist training grounds are doing.
Anyway, my most recent experience on a jury was pretty eye opening. A civil case where the survivors of a car driver who was killed in an accident with a truck, was suing the trucking company for damages. While we all managed to (finally) agree that the truck driver and trucking company were for the most part not liable (the accident was clearly the car drivers fault- take my word for it), the majority (11 out of 12) of the jurors felt that the survivors should be awarded damages BECAUSE THEY FILED THE SUIT AND SHOWED UP! I kid you not. I almost decided to get rid of all my guns out of fear that if I used one, even in a case of clear self defense, I might get myself a jury of complete idiots- an ever increasing likelihood it seems.
http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/aug2/456.html
The 456 Stupidest People on Earth
by Joey B. King
About 2 months ago, I wrote an article that was published in libertyforall.net entitled Four Theories and Insanity. The thrust of the article was that we enlightened few in the Liberty Movement need to be aware of modern psychological theories when we speak with others. One of the theories I highlighted was the work of Dr. Stanley Milgram. For those who may not have read the article, an American Jew named Dr. Stanley Milgram wondered how the Nazis could commit such gruesome atrocities during the Holocaust. He decided to gather some average Connecticut citizens to observe a word problem experiment. The observers were separated from the subjects by a glass panel and were to be told to administer an ever-increasing electric shock each time the study subject missed a word problem. The observers were told that a shock of 450 volts might kill the study subject. Over the horrid screams of the victims, two-thirds of the observers delivered the fatal shock when ordered to do so by a person of perceived authority.
Of course, it was a set-up, and the observers did not know the shock was a ruse. Milgram's experiment goes a long way in explaining government. Two-thirds of you will kill if someone in authority tells you to.
How does this work in a real world environment? In Tulia, Texas, it was recently discovered that an undercover cop named Tom Coleman gave false testimony in 38 drug-related cases. According to USA Today " Coleman worked alone for 18 months…. He kept no written records, wore no wire, filmed no video, produced no other witnesses or corroborating evidence. No drugs, paraphernalia, or money was seized during the arrests."
So Coleman and the prosecutor were able to convince 456 jurors that the defendants were guilty. What was Coleman? In the minds of the jury, a person of perceived authority. Does anyone think that a fully informed jury-advised of it's duty to judge both the law and guilt-would have come to a different conclusion? I have my doubts. I can hear some of you screaming as you are reading this: "if drugs were legalized we would not have this problem!" Really? Let's use another example.
I am sure we can agree that murder is, and should be, illegal. I am sure we can also agree that no other cases in the American judicial system get closer scrutiny than murder cases where the death penalty is involved. Yet, last year (2002) the outgoing Illinois governor commuted all death-row sentences, in part, because so many death row cases had been overturned with DNA evidence. I contend that a fully informed jury would have made no difference in these cases. The reason so many people in Illinois were wrongly convicted was at least partially due to the juror's perception that the prosecutor was someone of authority.
In the Tulia, Texas scandal we can only conclude:
Milgram's theory was proven to exist in a real world situation.
The prosecutor found the 456 stupidest people on earth to become jurors without the objection of the defense lawyers. That sounds statistically impossible since only 5,000 people live in Tulia.
Lawyers and prosecutors are usually adept at picking jurors they think they can manipulate. The 38 people in Tulia Texas and the innocent people on death row in Illinois prove, in my mind, that a fair jury trial is exceedingly difficult because "sheeple" will be the jurors and they will likely convict.
We in the Liberty Movement have 3 options we could strive for I suppose:
No criminal courts at all. Don't laugh, we had no courts for 9500 years in this country before Columbus "discovered" the New World. Sure there were miscarriages of justice, but there weren't many laws to be broken in the first place. "Primitive" cultures today often do not have courts Ask the 38 convicted drug offenders in Tulia Texas or the wrongly convicted death-row inmates in Illinois what they think of the court system.
Keep the current system.
Modify/improve the existing system. I see 2 areas for possible reforms, however neither would hold out much hope in my view.
If we were able to pass a fully informed jury amendment of some kind, it would only be effective if at least one member in each jury was enlightened. Given what we know about the Tulia incident, that ratio of enlightened people is (and will remain) exceedingly low.
The Liberty Movement could start an active campaign to vote out existing prosecutors en masse. Based on recent trends a small, targeted voter turnout could defeat elected prosecutors and start all over. The disadvantage to this approach is two fold:
1) It would take all the manpower and monetary resources we could muster at the expense of other initiatives.
2) The newly elected prosecutor would likely be just as bad.
What is the future of trial by jury? I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that as details of injustice increase the faith in the court system will decrease and at some point "something" will be done. Whatever that "something" is, we in the Liberty Movement must ask:
Can justice and authority co-exist?
Anyway, my most recent experience on a jury was pretty eye opening. A civil case where the survivors of a car driver who was killed in an accident with a truck, was suing the trucking company for damages. While we all managed to (finally) agree that the truck driver and trucking company were for the most part not liable (the accident was clearly the car drivers fault- take my word for it), the majority (11 out of 12) of the jurors felt that the survivors should be awarded damages BECAUSE THEY FILED THE SUIT AND SHOWED UP! I kid you not. I almost decided to get rid of all my guns out of fear that if I used one, even in a case of clear self defense, I might get myself a jury of complete idiots- an ever increasing likelihood it seems.
http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/aug2/456.html
The 456 Stupidest People on Earth
by Joey B. King
About 2 months ago, I wrote an article that was published in libertyforall.net entitled Four Theories and Insanity. The thrust of the article was that we enlightened few in the Liberty Movement need to be aware of modern psychological theories when we speak with others. One of the theories I highlighted was the work of Dr. Stanley Milgram. For those who may not have read the article, an American Jew named Dr. Stanley Milgram wondered how the Nazis could commit such gruesome atrocities during the Holocaust. He decided to gather some average Connecticut citizens to observe a word problem experiment. The observers were separated from the subjects by a glass panel and were to be told to administer an ever-increasing electric shock each time the study subject missed a word problem. The observers were told that a shock of 450 volts might kill the study subject. Over the horrid screams of the victims, two-thirds of the observers delivered the fatal shock when ordered to do so by a person of perceived authority.
Of course, it was a set-up, and the observers did not know the shock was a ruse. Milgram's experiment goes a long way in explaining government. Two-thirds of you will kill if someone in authority tells you to.
How does this work in a real world environment? In Tulia, Texas, it was recently discovered that an undercover cop named Tom Coleman gave false testimony in 38 drug-related cases. According to USA Today " Coleman worked alone for 18 months…. He kept no written records, wore no wire, filmed no video, produced no other witnesses or corroborating evidence. No drugs, paraphernalia, or money was seized during the arrests."
So Coleman and the prosecutor were able to convince 456 jurors that the defendants were guilty. What was Coleman? In the minds of the jury, a person of perceived authority. Does anyone think that a fully informed jury-advised of it's duty to judge both the law and guilt-would have come to a different conclusion? I have my doubts. I can hear some of you screaming as you are reading this: "if drugs were legalized we would not have this problem!" Really? Let's use another example.
I am sure we can agree that murder is, and should be, illegal. I am sure we can also agree that no other cases in the American judicial system get closer scrutiny than murder cases where the death penalty is involved. Yet, last year (2002) the outgoing Illinois governor commuted all death-row sentences, in part, because so many death row cases had been overturned with DNA evidence. I contend that a fully informed jury would have made no difference in these cases. The reason so many people in Illinois were wrongly convicted was at least partially due to the juror's perception that the prosecutor was someone of authority.
In the Tulia, Texas scandal we can only conclude:
Milgram's theory was proven to exist in a real world situation.
The prosecutor found the 456 stupidest people on earth to become jurors without the objection of the defense lawyers. That sounds statistically impossible since only 5,000 people live in Tulia.
Lawyers and prosecutors are usually adept at picking jurors they think they can manipulate. The 38 people in Tulia Texas and the innocent people on death row in Illinois prove, in my mind, that a fair jury trial is exceedingly difficult because "sheeple" will be the jurors and they will likely convict.
We in the Liberty Movement have 3 options we could strive for I suppose:
No criminal courts at all. Don't laugh, we had no courts for 9500 years in this country before Columbus "discovered" the New World. Sure there were miscarriages of justice, but there weren't many laws to be broken in the first place. "Primitive" cultures today often do not have courts Ask the 38 convicted drug offenders in Tulia Texas or the wrongly convicted death-row inmates in Illinois what they think of the court system.
Keep the current system.
Modify/improve the existing system. I see 2 areas for possible reforms, however neither would hold out much hope in my view.
If we were able to pass a fully informed jury amendment of some kind, it would only be effective if at least one member in each jury was enlightened. Given what we know about the Tulia incident, that ratio of enlightened people is (and will remain) exceedingly low.
The Liberty Movement could start an active campaign to vote out existing prosecutors en masse. Based on recent trends a small, targeted voter turnout could defeat elected prosecutors and start all over. The disadvantage to this approach is two fold:
1) It would take all the manpower and monetary resources we could muster at the expense of other initiatives.
2) The newly elected prosecutor would likely be just as bad.
What is the future of trial by jury? I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that as details of injustice increase the faith in the court system will decrease and at some point "something" will be done. Whatever that "something" is, we in the Liberty Movement must ask:
Can justice and authority co-exist?
